W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2007

Re: Detailed review of 3.12.10. The time element

From: Ben Boyle <benjamins.boyle@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 15:33:11 +1000
Message-ID: <5f37426b0708042233n263464cfo6c18e63466c5fb0d@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-html@w3.org

HTML attribute isn't bad. "Content attribute" is a bit vague.

Knowing where the spec is referring to the serialisation and when the
DOM is quite tricky; which has not been a problem in the past when the
HTML and DOM specs have been kept separate.

I don't mind merging the specs (especially if it helps implementors)
but clarity of language will be a challenge. "HTML attribute" and "DOM
attribute" seem simple choices to me.




On 8/5/07, Jason White <jason@jasonjgw.net> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 10:04:39PM -0500, Robert Burns wrote:
>
> > I think Sander's proposed language is by far the clearest ("must reflect
> > the datetime content attribute's value" might also work). I think the term
> > '"content attribute" just makes it harder to read. Perhaps markup attribute
> > would be better (though I know there are problems with that too). Language!
> > (shakes head).
>
> Perhaps "HTML attribute" would be better, as long as it is defined in the spec
> to include XHTML (otherwise, it may be construed as referring only to the HTML
> serialization).
>
>
Received on Sunday, 5 August 2007 05:33:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:48 UTC